4 ms·
While you're right that depleted uranium specifically isn't covered, it's interesting to me that you focus on the legal status as opposed to the horrific effect
by yogthos 6y ago
While you're right that depleted uranium specifically isn't covered, it's interesting to me that you focus on the legal status as opposed to the horrific effects of the weapon on the civilian population. There's also a pretty strong case that it falls under existing laws prohibiting superfluous injuries or unnecessary suffering.
https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-use-of-depleted-uranium-munition-by-the-us-military-in-syria-a-legally-gray-area-not-necessarily/ https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-use-of-depleted-uranium-mu...
- tptacek 6y agoHe's focusing on the incorrect statement you made. The straightforward thing to do here, if you think the rest of your argument is more important than your mistake, is to concede the point and move on.
- alasdair_ 6y ago>While you're right that depleted uranium specifically isn't covered, it's interesting to me that you focus on the legal status You brought up the legal status. Then you were shown to be incorrect and are now trying to change the topic.
- yogthos 6y agoWhile I've already acknowledged that it's not explicitly covered, I've linked an article explaining that it's in a gray area at best and falls under existing laws prohibiting superfluous injuries or unnecessary suffering.